llvm dev - Mar 2021 - [libcxx-dev] Compiler support in libc++

+1 on the compiler support.

I’d love to see a more clearly defined policy for other aspects as well, like
supported C libraries and supported OSes.

From: libcxx-dev <libcxx-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of
Michael Schellenberger Costa via libcxx-dev
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 12:13 PM
To: Louis Dionne <ldionne.2 at gmail.com>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Libc++ Dev <libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [libcxx-dev] Compiler support in libc++

As a (rare) stl contributor I am also strongly in favor of the proposal.

I greatly reduces the maintenance burden for us.

--Michael

Am Mo., 1. März 2021 um 18:40 Uhr schrieb Louis Dionne via libcxx-dev
<libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org>>:

Dear LLVM community,


I’ve wanted to address the topic of which compilers are supported by libc++ for
a long time. LLVM documents that it supports GCC >= 5, Clang >= 3.5 and
other fairly old compilers. I think this makes a lot of sense for codebases like
LLVM and Clang, since it means you can bootstrap a compiler with your system
compiler in many cases. It’s also fairly easy to enforce that, since you just
have to code in a supported subset of C++.


However, for a library like libc++, things are a bit different. By its very
nature, libc++ needs to rely on a recent compiler in order to implement most
recent library features. Not being able to rely on a recent compiler leads to
problems:

  *   Adding new features is significantly more complicated because we need to
implement them conditionally on compiler support, not just on support for a C++
Standard. There can also be interactions between what compiler the library is
built with and what compiler the headers are used with.
  *   We accumulate technical debt around the code base. Some of these #ifdef
code paths are not in use anymore, others don’t compile anymore or they contain
bugs.
  *   It creates a false sense of support: people think they can use a libc++
built with e.g. Clang 3.5, but in reality doing so is a terrible idea. The
library might not contain runtime support for features that will be advertised
as available by the headers (the char8_t RTTI and the upcoming support for
<format> come to mind). Those are serious ABI issues that you’ll only
notice when trying to use the feature.


I think it’s important to stress that the current state of things is that we
don’t *actually* support much older compilers - the documentation claims we do,
but that is misleading. While things may happen to work on older compilers, I
wouldn’t recommend relying on that for anything serious, since it’s mostly
untested.


Furthermore, the actual value of supporting old compilers isn’t obvious. Indeed,
the best way of building libc++ is to bootstrap Clang and then build libc++ with
it, which is easily achieved with the LLVM Runtimes build. Of course, we also
support different shipping mechanisms (including non-Clang compilers), but in
all cases it should be reasonable to expect that someone building libc++ at the
tip is able to do so using a recent compiler.


For all these reasons, I think we must adjust the official support policy we
currently document. Concretely, the following modified policy solves the issues
I mentioned above and makes it so that the stated support reflects the reality
of what we truly support:

  *   At any given point in time, libc++ supports back to the latest released
version of Clang. For example, if the latest major release of Clang is 14,
libc++ (on main) supports Clang 14. When Clang 15 is released (and libc++ 15
with it), libc++ (on main) is free to assume Clang 15. As a result, any released
libc++ will always support the previously (and the currently) released Clang,
with the support window moving as newer Clangs are released.
  *   We support the latest major release of GCC, as advertised on
https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gcc.gnu.org/releases.html__;!!FbZ0ZwI3Qg!_y_XK6BpuoqsamYVQvCUSV4xy-Iu4uA2X5phLfQkA8xyHl-u4Jzu191vT6ko$>.
  *   We support the latest major release of AppleClang.


The above policy is reasonable from libc++’s perspective, and it also reflects
what we test on a regular basis with the CI. Furthermore, supporting up to the
last release instead of requiring a trunk compiler (like MSVC’s STL and
libstdc++) gives vendors with alternate delivery vehicles approximately 6 months
to update their compiler if they want to jump on the next release of libc++,
which I think is an important property to retain.


This message is both a heads up about the current state of things, an
explanation of where we (the libc++ contributors) want to end up, and an
invitation to have a discussion with the rest of the community.


I propose that we maintain our current level of support for older compilers
(i.e. keep things roughly building) until the next LLVM release, after which the
above policy would become official and libc++ development would be allowed to
assume a compiler as documented above. That would give approximately 6 months
(from now to the next release) for people managing build bots to migrate to the
Runtimes build, and approximately 6 months (from the next release to the
next-next release) for external users to adjust to this policy if needed.


Thanks,

Louis


P.S.: There is no mention of other compilers besides Clang, AppleClang and GCC
above. That’s because no other compiler is tested on a regular basis, so the
status of support for other compilers is unknown. If you’d like to add official
support for a new compiler, I’ll be happy to help you set up the required
testing.

_______________________________________________
libcxx-dev mailing list
libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libcxx-dev<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libcxx-dev__;!!FbZ0ZwI3Qg!_y_XK6BpuoqsamYVQvCUSV4xy-Iu4uA2X5phLfQkA8xyHl-u4Jzu11KtVEpS$>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210301/8f672aac/attachment-0001.html>

Hi,

What isn't clear to me is the difference between "building libcxx"
and
"using the installed here in client code"?
If we ship libc++ on a system, what is the restriction on the system for
someone to build a c++ application?

Thanks,

-- 
Mehdi


On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:01 AM Ben Craig via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> +1 on the compiler support.
>
>
>
> I’d love to see a more clearly defined policy for other aspects as well,
> like supported C libraries and supported OSes.
>
>
>
> *From:* libcxx-dev <libcxx-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> * On Behalf
Of *Michael
> Schellenberger Costa via libcxx-dev
> *Sent:* Monday, March 1, 2021 12:13 PM
> *To:* Louis Dionne <ldionne.2 at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Libc++ Dev <libcxx-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [libcxx-dev] Compiler support in libc++
>
>
>
> As a (rare) stl contributor I am also strongly in favor of the proposal.
>
>
>
> I greatly reduces the maintenance burden for us.
>
>
>
> --Michael
>
>
>
> Am Mo., 1. März 2021 um 18:40 Uhr schrieb Louis Dionne via libcxx-dev <
> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
>
> Dear LLVM community,
>
>
>
> I’ve wanted to address the topic of which compilers are supported by
> libc++ for a long time. LLVM documents that it supports GCC >= 5, Clang
>> 3.5 and other fairly old compilers. I think this makes a lot of sense
for
> codebases like LLVM and Clang, since it means you can bootstrap a compiler
> with your system compiler in many cases. It’s also fairly easy to enforce
> that, since you just have to code in a supported subset of C++.
>
>
>
> However, for a library like libc++, things are a bit different. By its
> very nature, libc++ needs to rely on a recent compiler in order to
> implement most recent library features. Not being able to rely on a recent
> compiler leads to problems:
>
>    - Adding new features is significantly more complicated because we
>    need to implement them conditionally on compiler support, not just on
>    support for a C++ Standard. There can also be interactions between what
>    compiler the library is built with and what compiler the headers are
used
>    with.
>    - We accumulate technical debt around the code base. Some of these
>    #ifdef code paths are not in use anymore, others don’t compile anymore
or
>    they contain bugs.
>    - It creates a false sense of support: people think they can use a
>    libc++ built with e.g. Clang 3.5, but in reality doing so is a terrible
>    idea. The library might not contain runtime support for features that
will
>    be advertised as available by the headers (the char8_t RTTI and the
>    upcoming support for <format> come to mind). Those are serious ABI
issues
>    that you’ll only notice when trying to use the feature.
>
>
>
> I think it’s important to stress that the current state of things is that
> we don’t *actually* support much older compilers - the documentation claims
> we do, but that is misleading. While things may happen to work on older
> compilers, I wouldn’t recommend relying on that for anything serious, since
> it’s mostly untested.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, the actual value of supporting old compilers isn’t obvious.
> Indeed, the best way of building libc++ is to bootstrap Clang and then
> build libc++ with it, which is easily achieved with the LLVM Runtimes
> build. Of course, we also support different shipping mechanisms (including
> non-Clang compilers), but in all cases it should be reasonable to expect
> that someone building libc++ at the tip is able to do so using a recent
> compiler.
>
>
>
> For all these reasons, I think we must adjust the official support policy
> we currently document. Concretely, the following modified policy solves the
> issues I mentioned above and makes it so that the stated support reflects
> the reality of what we truly support:
>
>    - At any given point in time, libc++ supports back to the latest
>    released version of Clang. For example, if the latest major release of
>    Clang is 14, libc++ (on main) supports Clang 14. When Clang 15 is
released
>    (and libc++ 15 with it), libc++ (on main) is free to assume Clang 15. As
a
>    result, any released libc++ will always support the previously (and the
>    currently) released Clang, with the support window moving as newer
Clangs
>    are released.
>    - We support the latest major release of GCC, as advertised on
>    https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
>   
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gcc.gnu.org/releases.html__;!!FbZ0ZwI3Qg!_y_XK6BpuoqsamYVQvCUSV4xy-Iu4uA2X5phLfQkA8xyHl-u4Jzu191vT6ko$>
>    .
>    - We support the latest major release of AppleClang.
>
>
>
> The above policy is reasonable from libc++’s perspective, and it also
> reflects what we test on a regular basis with the CI. Furthermore,
> supporting up to the last release instead of requiring a trunk compiler
> (like MSVC’s STL and libstdc++) gives vendors with alternate delivery
> vehicles approximately 6 months to update their compiler if they want to
> jump on the next release of libc++, which I think is an important property
> to retain.
>
>
>
> This message is both a heads up about the current state of things, an
> explanation of where we (the libc++ contributors) want to end up, and an
> invitation to have a discussion with the rest of the community.
>
>
>
> I propose that we maintain our current level of support for older
> compilers (i.e. keep things roughly building) until the next LLVM release,
> after which the above policy would become official and libc++ development
> would be allowed to assume a compiler as documented above. That would give
> approximately 6 months (from now to the next release) for people managing
> build bots to migrate to the Runtimes build, and approximately 6 months
> (from the next release to the next-next release) for external users to
> adjust to this policy if needed.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Louis
>
>
>
> P.S.: There is no mention of other compilers besides Clang, AppleClang and
> GCC above. That’s because no other compiler is tested on a regular basis,
> so the status of support for other compilers is unknown. If you’d like to
> add official support for a new compiler, I’ll be happy to help you set up
> the required testing.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> libcxx-dev mailing list
> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libcxx-dev
>
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libcxx-dev__;!!FbZ0ZwI3Qg!_y_XK6BpuoqsamYVQvCUSV4xy-Iu4uA2X5phLfQkA8xyHl-u4Jzu11KtVEpS$>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210301/2a9222f1/attachment.html>